Interfaith Council of Amador

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680363653
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Jackson, CA, USA
Phone
2092679006
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations
Affiliation
Interfaith

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,870,658
Expenses
$1,454,047
Assets
$3,812,765
Liabilities
$229,228

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BETH STANTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DON HOVERSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN GALL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • BETH STANTON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $104,862 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide food, clothing, and household survival materials to bona-fide needy individuals in amador county California

What it reported doing in 2025

1 the organization successfully served approximately over 3000 needy families, and estimated 1,600,000 pounds of food was distributed during 2018 2 through the efforts of the food bank it is estimated that over 40,000 hours of volunteer support was donated during the year. 3 during 2018 the organization successfully restructured, renamed and relocated the interfaith food bank thrift store. This division of the organization is responsible for receiving donations of primarily used items from the general public for the use and sale to fund the food bank. 4. The interfaith council of amador through the interfaith food bank of amador county currently has 16 satellite locations where food is distributed to food insecure familys. 5. The food bank works with cdss and usda to distribute the emergency food assistance program, (efap) bags throughout the county.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.5%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 64.5%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 22.3%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.62; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.5% of revenue deployed · 64.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $938K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $105K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 45/100.